You deride Crane for not just accepting a deal that would put him behind three teams in his division as far as revenue and yet Crane is the idiot? Sure....
You know.... I haven't taken personal shots at you and I could big time. I don't know why you can't constrain yourself. Why don't you respond to my comments regarding MLB extra innings? I was talking about the current plan Crane is yapping about not competing with the others in this division which this stupid plan will certainly not do. This stupid plan if accepted could set a precedent and undermine future negotiations. I personally feel it's a weak bluff.
So what is the exact deal that Crane is exploring with MLB Extra Innings since you imply you are in the know? I have never paid close to a "few hundred" dollars a season to get the package.
Whatever you paid is in addition to whatever carriage fees were tacked on for CSN H. You didn't get it for free, did you? What did you pay? I meant at most a couple of hundred (200) not a few hundred. My mistake for not clarifying it. People will have to sign up for it if they haven't already and with the ****ty rating the Astros had with it on basic cable last year, good luck with that. Crane should be the one supplying the details here. He's the one who is boasting about his plan that doesn't add up.
Thanks... Is this better? So if CSN H blows up, all of you Crane supporters with or without access to CSN H are going to be cool paying MLB $124.99 a season to get MLB Extra Innings? And have no Rockets coverage ? Jim Crane remains a bumbling idiot. I should be surprised but I am not that Crane supporters aren't concerned that this is the plan that Crane is yapping about. You'd think he'd be talking about going back to Fox or signing with some other RSN. WTF has he been doing? You guys point at Crane needing revenue to compete and what we have here is him talking about going to a alacarte Network with seemingly little revenue opportunity. If MLB has to produce the broadcasts that's going to add expense for them. I don't see how lifting a local broadcast MLB rule makes a carrier pay for that either. Maybe they get a few people paying $124.99 a season to watch the Astros on MLB but how do you accurately allocate that to the Astros. If Crane goes the alacarte route, how does he refuse to accept that later on when Carriers draw a line in the sand requiring it?
Just saw this..... MLB could out of the goodness in their hearts decide to open the floodgates and pay the Astros an additional rights fees outside of what other teams get. SMH (I'm pretty sure the Astros are already paid somehow by MLB but could be wrong).
So true!!! Also given the fact that there was a game last season that nobody watched, I wish Crane good luck in people lining up to pay $125 other than the faithful in this thread.
Dude I gotta say, you're getting just a tad bit biased and unhinged at this point. Step back and re-evaluate. No one is 100% right or wrong here, but I do wonder why anyone thought doing business with Comcast was a great idea. Under advise of counsel, I do declare that I have no stake in this situation whatsoever. I'm just an observer.
I agree that Comcast was a bad idea. They should have used Direct TV because anyone that wanted to watch the teams would have an opportunity to switch to them while cable customers are limited to the infrastructure. The ability for anyone to switch would have put added pressure for carriage deals if other providers were losing customers. I think Granville just gets a little frustrated, as I do, that so many commenting in this thread refuse to lay ANY blame on Crane.
Why don't you wait until there are facts presented regarding the deal (or no deal) prior to laying into Crane? At this point, you have absolutely no idea what Crane and MLB have been discussing. I assume that since you have such a high disregard for Crane you can find real issues to complain about rather than speculating.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/spo...-time-in-CSN-5198938.php?t=d754585d268cb15e6e As attorneys prepare for a critical series of hearings Tuesday in the Comcast SportsNet Houston bankruptcy case, the Rockets say they are making progress in arranging carriage agreements for the financially troubled network and want more time to negotiate. In one of a series of motions and briefs filed Friday, the Rockets asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur for a chance to update the court on the efforts before a Tuesday hearing on two motions: the Astros' motion to dismiss the involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy claim filed against the network last September, and Comcast's request that Isgur appoint an "examiner with expanded powers" to oversee CSN Houston in bankruptcy. As has been the case in virtually every aspect of the troubled CSN Houston partnership, the parties are not in lockstep as Tuesday approaches. The Rockets favor putting the network in Chapter 11 but oppose Comcast's request for an examiner. The Astros want the case dismissed. Comcast wants it to stay in Isgur's court under an examiner as negotiations continue for a sale - presumably one in which Comcast will buy the Astros' and Rockets' share of CSN Houston. Add to that three-way standoff the Rockets' request Friday for more time to negotiate, and it remains unclear as to what can be expected Tuesday. Hope for the fans? However, for the approximately 60 percent or more of Houston's 2.2 million TV households that do not have access to CSN Houston, the Rockets' request for continued negotiations could be an encouraging sign. "The Rockets have worked diligently … to develop a feasible reorganization strategy that maximizes the value of the network by stabilizing its operations and assuring its future viability," attorneys for the Rockets said in a Friday court filing. "The Rockets efforts have not yet been concluded and the Rockets believe that exclusivity should remain in place to permit them to fully explore all the restructuring options available to the network, including new carriage." The Astros, meanwhile, remain consistent in their position that the case should be dismissed and that the team should be free to take its broadcast rights back from CSN Houston, which would effectively put the 16-month-old network out of business. "The issue that Judge Isgur will rule on this week is whether Comcast's bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith," said Giles Kibbe, the Astros' general counsel. "We believe it was. But, regardless of that ruling, this case should not remain in bankruptcy." The Rockets since December have had the role of lead negotiator on behalf of CSN Houston, which does not have carriage agreements with DirecTV, Dish Network, AT&T U-verse, Suddenlink and other major carriers. The team requested more time in January to negotiate with potential carriers, and Isgur allowed it to do so through Tuesday. Comcast offers to buy However, Comcast, which owns about 22.5 percent of the network, has said it is willing to purchase the portion of CSN Houston that it does not own - about 31 percent from the Rockets and 46.5 percent from the Astros. As part of Comcast's purchase offer, it said it is willing to allow the Rockets to buy up to 20 percent of the reorganized network. However, the Rockets would have no say in how the reorganized network is operated. It is not known if Comcast has made a similar offer to the Astros.
If CSN-H blows up, both the Rockets and the Astros will be free to negotiate carriage deals with whoever they want. What part of "temporary solution" do you not grasp with MLB Extra Innings? That will only come into play if CSN-H is still in flux come April.
Why doesn't Crane just take a cue from the Rockets and not negotiate in public? It's hard to expect much from Crane, I know.
So this temporary solution will be free of charge to the end user? How do you not grasp that going to an alacarte "temporary soloution" doesn't set a precedent for carriers to only offer it that way to their subscribers moving forward.
Newsflash... the Rockets want CSN to survive, stick around, and hopefully get carriage agreements one day. The Astros would have been overjoyed if the network blew up last year. The most likely scenario is that they sell their rights back to FSN, or another channel that already has widespread coverage. Also, you're the only one on here speculating that the Astros would only be available on extra innings, which would require an additional subscription. From what I read, MLB-TV (which is available on most basic tiers) would broadcast the games in the Houston market only, for the viewers that didn't have CSN. In that scenario, CSN still exists... and that's how the comcast users are watching them. If CSN does not exist, the Astros/Rockets are obviously going to go somewhere where their games go out to the largest % of audience... why would they agree to a deal that doesn't guarantee them any more coverage than they already have (the deal they're either trying to get out of -- Astros, or vastly improve coverage for -- Rockets).
LOL at the Newsflash reference..... I mentioned the MLB channel early on too. That in itself sets a precedent for other teams to do the same thing should they encounter TV carriage issues. Here's a Newsflash for you..... Do you understand that the Astros media rights currently belong to CSN H? If CSN H still exists, do you actually think that CSN H (Astros, Rockets, Comcast) would get unanimous support amongst the 3 partners to allow the Astros games to be broadcast in Houston without the Network getting a dime for it?
If the Astros were not getting paid their rights fees, and the judge feels that comcast was wrong to hold that back, they would/should be allowed to walk. If the Astros remain on CSN, they still get paid by CSN, and it's up to the network to secure carriage (presuming the Astros are bought out of their ownership stake...the only scenario I could see them staying with comcast). If carriage can't be secured, MLB could assist the Astros in getting people who don't have CSN access (but have MLB TV access) to be able to watch the games. If that involves them paying comcast, or comcast just has to take it as an impetus to accept carriage deals or risk losing their product for nothing, so be it (and as part of the global media agreement with MLB, comcast broadcasts are already available to advanced MLB media to distribute at their discretion). As far as setting a precedent goes, that is exactly what could/should happen. This hasn't really happened in MLB before, and with more cable channels being formed, MLB needs to do everything to secure their product can be seen in a top 10 media market. Again, the Astros want to distance themselves away from CSN, the company that has refused to pay them. If the rockets were also on board with that, this whole mess could be resolved by now.
The Astros in market media rights belong to CSN H. Until the rights no longer belong to CSN H, anyone wishing to broadcast Astros baseball in the CSN H foot print has to pay to do so. Comcast has been trying to accept carriage deals, it's Crane who is the problem. So Comcast should start paying RSN's money to show MLB games for teams who can't get a deal in place in their own market? Would that be on that one basic tier channel they have or would that be on MLB extra Innings? Again, the Astros want to distance themselves away from CSN, the company that has refused to pay them. If the rockets were also on board with that, this whole mess could be resolved by now.[/QUOTE]
Not quite sure why so many fail to realize this!!!!!! They just can't seem to see the forest due to all the trees being in the way!!!
